[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I said Watson and Crick because they did, after all, identify the chemical structure of genetics. That gets us to sequencing and molecular biology and had an enormous practical impact after 30-40 years. Yes, somebody else would have done it if they hadn't. And of course there's the fooforall about whether they stole Rosalind Franklin's data, which detracts from the achievement somewhat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of see them as a "right place, right time" deal. Not only did they have Franklin's data but also her expertise. She told them that they had the phospate groups in the wrong place because they didn't know that they were hydrophilic.
Plus they had Wilkins' data and expertise (I still think that the reason W + C are so famous and nobody knows about Wilkins sharing the Nobel with them is because of the "Slide Rule" picture) and Pauling had his travel restricted and couldn't come to England to meet Franklin and Wilkins. I would guess that if he did he would have beaten them to it.
Also, neither of them really did experients.

[ QUOTE ]
But still, they've both gone on to continued scientific achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that they did. Crick went crazy with his consciousness stuff and Watson did no real science. Crick's influence on molecular biology in the later 50's was reviewing others work.
I just don't seem them as these giants.
Was their finding really important? Of course. But too many other, more talented, people were involved.

[ QUOTE ]
I chose Skinner for psychology because he had enormous impact with behaviorism and completely dominated the field for 2 decades, and the basic principles he laid out are still in use today.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my Ph.D. advisor would agree with you about James. He gave me a copy of James' book on my first day in the lab, and now he lives 3 doors down from James' Cambridge house. Maybe that's why I didn't even consider him for this list [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Understandable [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]